Does this have to do with audio? Maybe nothing maybe everything.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf
This is the second sentence from the paper. What do you reckon?
A high frequency 437MHz, 2 watt sinusoidal electrical signal is transmitted from a
dipole antenna to a parallel near-field dipole detecting antenna.
He presents the theory for an infinitesimal electric dipole, as found in any good EM textbook, but largely glosses over the distinction between this and any real finite dipole. He then invents fanciful ideas about what the maths shows.
In his experiment he says he used a dipole, yet he draws a monopole. I tried Googling the RA3126 antenna he says he used. The only one I can find is a monopole - so what did he use for a counterpoise/RF ground? Such a flaw immediately throws all his experimental results away. Interestingly, when I Googled 'Hamtronics RA2136' the only results were several versions of this paper and fringe science books referring to it.
He admits that he did the experiment in a normal room, not an anechoic chamber.
He appears to take no account whatsoever of the mutual coupling between transmit and receive antennas (which will modify their impedances, and so affect signal phase), even though they are quite close.
He admits that people like Feyman have alternative (non-superluminal) explanations for what the theory says.
I note that this paper is on arxiv.org (also 2000 and 2006 versions) so presumably has not received peer review, or has been refused publication after peer review.
I think we can safely ignore this paper. That means it has nothing to do with anything at all, including audio.
In his experiment he says he used a dipole, yet he draws a monopole. I tried Googling the RA3126 antenna he says he used. The only one I can find is a monopole - so what did he use for a counterpoise/RF ground? Such a flaw immediately throws all his experimental results away. Interestingly, when I Googled 'Hamtronics RA2136' the only results were several versions of this paper and fringe science books referring to it.
He admits that he did the experiment in a normal room, not an anechoic chamber.
He appears to take no account whatsoever of the mutual coupling between transmit and receive antennas (which will modify their impedances, and so affect signal phase), even though they are quite close.
He admits that people like Feyman have alternative (non-superluminal) explanations for what the theory says.
I note that this paper is on arxiv.org (also 2000 and 2006 versions) so presumably has not received peer review, or has been refused publication after peer review.
I think we can safely ignore this paper. That means it has nothing to do with anything at all, including audio.
I think its an old experiment expanded in the Walker paper. The earliest being from the 1970's using a CB radio and Tek465 scope. I had a copy and will put it up here just for completeness when found.
On the ground plane, since unbalanced coax was used and the antenna length 1/4 wave, the coax shield could not be the counterpose without high reflections. But maybe it does not matter, phase and time being the object of experiment.
Crazy idea I had, maybe the reflections are required as in a laser?
This one I used google to find. The 1970s still looking...
On the ground plane, since unbalanced coax was used and the antenna length 1/4 wave, the coax shield could not be the counterpose without high reflections. But maybe it does not matter, phase and time being the object of experiment.
Crazy idea I had, maybe the reflections are required as in a laser?
This one I used google to find. The 1970s still looking...
Attachments
I note that this paper is on arxiv.org (also 2000 and 2006 versions) so presumably has not received peer review, or has been refused publication after peer review.
I think we can safely ignore this paper. That means it has nothing to do with anything at all, including audio.
Was just about to write the same thing. Anyone can write anything on arxiv.org. Great resource for sure, but doesn't mean it's published/peer reviewed.
Found another.
I did not work in a pure research group but we were allowed a lot of leeway on speculative concepts.
One published experiment is worth ten theoretical peer reviewed papers.
-
I did not work in a pure research group but we were allowed a lot of leeway on speculative concepts.
One published experiment is worth ten theoretical peer reviewed papers.
-
Attachments
It matters hugely. For a start, saying "dipole" and then using a monopole shows at best significant sloppiness; at worst it indicates that the experimenter was ignorant of what he was experimenting with, which means that his results must be suspect. He makes no mention of counterpoises, ground currents, common-mode chokes etc. so I am forced to the conclusion that he knows little of RF and antennas; his results are of little value. There is no point in even trying to replicate his experiment; who wants to replicate a fatally flawed setup?jfetter said:On the ground plane, since unbalanced coax was used and the antenna length 1/4 wave, the coax shield could not be the counterpose without high reflections. But maybe it does not matter, phase and time being the object of experiment.
Not if the experiment shows that the experimenter did not know what he was doing.One published experiment is worth ten theoretical peer reviewed papers.
Electronics&Wireless World was famous in the 1980s for publising all sorts of fringe and quack science. For some reason the editor wanted to promote an anti-relativity view.This one I used google to find.
Flaws in relativity may one day be found. When they are, it will be published in Physical Review Letters or some other reputable science journal, not EWW or DIYaudio.
Those are incredible statements.
Possibly the only reason it worked was due to the authors unfamiliarity with RF.
High VSWR may be required as I suggested.
If a proper ground plane was used, the experiment would have been negative?
Incidentally, I have found a similar but peer reviewed experiment.
Cheers
Possibly the only reason it worked was due to the authors unfamiliarity with RF.
High VSWR may be required as I suggested.
If a proper ground plane was used, the experiment would have been negative?
Incidentally, I have found a similar but peer reviewed experiment.
Cheers
113 years ago Einstein found the Universal speed limit and in the intervening time no reproducible experiment or observation has refuted its existence. Every theory of science is subject to refutation when a body of credible and reproducible observations shows it to be wrong. The material you have shared here is rife with error, inconsistency and ignorance of the fundamentals required for an experiment to be of any value or to be taken seriously. It is much, much more reasonable to conjecture that Einstein's interpretation will still stand 1,000 years from now than it is to think that these "experiments" are in any way meaningful.
So you have performed at least one of these experiments?
Probably not , it does not really matter.
Another paper rife with errors?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608289.pdf
This is all well documented in Sir Whittaker's volume 2, History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity.
-
Probably not , it does not really matter.
Another paper rife with errors?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608289.pdf
This is all well documented in Sir Whittaker's volume 2, History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity.
-
Common sense and some knowledge of RF is now "incredible"?jfetter said:Those are incredible statements.
Possibly the only reason it worked was due to the authors unfamiliarity with RF.
High VSWR may be required as I suggested.
If a proper ground plane was used, the experiment would have been negative?
The basic problem is the usual one of the sloppy or ignorant experimenter: the test is not testing what he thinks it is testing. High VSWR ruins this experiment. In order to correctly sense the field he needs either constant impedance (difficult) or compensate for impedance (which requires some understanding).
Anyway, as this thread is now deteriorating into yet another anti-SR rant (I assume the first post reference to audio was just to suck us in?) I will leave you to it.
Here is Singleton's Los Alamos patent cover page. He received $3M in phase one. Looks like it sort of went black late 2014.
Don't use google for patent searches. I learned the hard way that results are filtered by some unknown method. I spend a few minutes weekly looking at new work in this area.
I'm sticking to my laser/reflections theory even though his patent says otherwise.
Its better to assume some offication or somewhat skewed details. I did it in all of my patents. Drawings and illustrations are never to scale.
Don't use google for patent searches. I learned the hard way that results are filtered by some unknown method. I spend a few minutes weekly looking at new work in this area.
I'm sticking to my laser/reflections theory even though his patent says otherwise.
Its better to assume some offication or somewhat skewed details. I did it in all of my patents. Drawings and illustrations are never to scale.
Attachments
I think its an old experiment expanded in the Walker paper.
This one is reproducible and flawed. The pre-signal aberration on mercury switches is known. The mercury forms a meniscus as the switch opens yielding a very brief resistive gap before it suddenly (pico-seconds as mentioned) snaps open the rest of the way. In a 50 Ohm system with enough current to generate several volt level pulses this is easily observable. It was a confounder in doing fine scale settling time measurements with charged line pulsers intended for TDR.
Last edited:
This one is reproducible and flawed. The pre-signal aberration on mercury switches is known. The mercury forms a meniscus as the switch opens yielding a very brief resistive gap before it suddenly (pico-seconds as mentioned) snaps open the rest of the way. In a 50 Ohm system with enough current to generate several volt level pulses this is easily observable. It was a confounder in doing fine scale settling time measurements with charged line pulsers intended for TDR.
Ok, yes I accept that.
Ok, yes I accept that.
Because I was not aware a surface wave is necessary in all working superluminal examples.
For fun I followed the trail of companies that these devices are assigned to.
Its never ending so I stopped. This one pre-dates Singleton's and is a hybrid. One part of the 'data' is carried by one type of SW emitter and the balance by another type. That would be very tough to crack especially if switching as in a spread spectrum system.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a9/05/79/f397af2575e6b5/US9496921.pdf
That company CPC, is now called TEXZON. They have signed on with Baylor I suppose for phase three/four? The goal being high power SW wireless transmission. They have even filed applications for secure power transmission.
Viziv Technologies
The technology white sheet is interesting.
http://vizivtechnologies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/TEXZON_Baylor_Corum16.pdf
Singleton et al - Los Alamos have filed and been awarded numerous patents based on this technology.
-
Re: Viziv, you can read this stuff with a straight face, this looks like Tesla power beam stations rehashed? Live inside a microwave oven so the folks 5000 mi away can watch the soccer match.
Why are so many free energy scams run by ex-military?
Ya I saw that too but they are using same basic idea as Lanl , and are only claiming high transfer efficiency. Nothing more.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
- Home
- General Interest
- Everything Else
- Superluminally